Non-Disclosure in ‘Closed’ APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry
Despite 15 organisations and 19 individuals submitting written evidence to the APPG EBE Inquiry “looking into the potential and detail for a New Homes Ombudsman”, there is scant sign of any progress. Initially, written submissions were required to be in by a 22 December 2017. This “deadline” was then extended by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) to 12 January 2018. Yet only recently did a list of those who submitted written evidence appear on the CIC website! At the time of writing there are no details or links to pdfs of these written submissions to the APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry.
So I asked why and the CIC confirmed that:
“We will not be providing links to the submissions this time as some of the witnesses requested not to do so. Therefore, we decided not to be selective not to publish any of them on our website instead of being selective. The evidence received was submitted to us by those who voluntarily wanted to provide information and all evidence has been accepted – and the only selection criteria used was the relevance to the scope of the Inquiry and the questions presented in the “call for evidence”.
Whilst I can understand that many of the individuals who made written submissions might fear repercussions from their housebuilders for doing so, there is no reason why any organisation or institution would not be happy for their submission to be available to download on the CIC submissions page. The CIC spokesperson confirmed to me: “If CIOB or Housing Ombudsman would like to share their evidence they can do so on their websites or issue press release about it.
“The CIC/APPGEBE page is not a public information source.”
Surely that is the purposes of any publicly accessible website? It is also strange and unexplained, that this is the only Inquiry that does not have listed details of the evidence sessions. In addition, half of the Inquiries on the CIC APPG EBE web pages give links to pdf notes of sessions and written submissions.
So when exactly are the sessions?
It is not being disclosed! It would appear this APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry is being conducted behind closed doors with the CIC spokesperson confirming to me that:
“Information will be available to invitees in due course. I am afraid, one must be invited to give evidence or to attend the session. The evidence giving sessions have already started and there will be three of them. The Committee members can only commit to three 2-hour meetings and will invite those whom they would like to ask further questions.”
Just three 2 hour sessions! Really? Is that it for such an important Inquiry that has the potential to help many tens of thousands of people every year? The Inquiry “Into the impact of Brexit on future skill needs” had five sessions! It is such a great pity that the previous APPG EBE chair Jo Churchill was promoted in Theresa May’s January re shuffle. I have no doubt that Mrs Churchill, who is passionate about the issue of defective new homes and indifferent housebuilders, would have taken this APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry by the scuff of the neck and pushed through the setting up of an independent, government-appointed new homes ombudsman. The new APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry chair Eddie Hughes, an MP for all of seven months, would appear to prefer to spend his time tweeting about pancakes!
Laughably, for this important Inquiry, the CIC have said:
“The only room available [at the House of Commons] to hold the last session was hardly big enough for all members of the committee and all witnesses to sit at one time!”
The comments from the CIC spokesperson are as enlightening as they are frustrating.
Why is this important APPG EBE New Homes Ombudsman Inquiry being conducted in secret, behind closed doors?
Who has been invited to attend the three evidence sessions?
Are any from the 19 “Individuals” being “invited” to give evidence?
Are representatives from this dreadful industry being given an opportunity to corrupt the Inquiry report?
Will this Inquiry Report when it does eventually get published, even be in the public domain?
There are most certainly more questions than answers for an Inquiry that has barely begun. Even worse, this Inquiry is being conducted outside of public scrutiny!
Do APPGs achieve anything?
As I already knew, the CIC confirmed the “APPG EBE – is a voluntary initiative of a few parliamentary members, who share interest in issues related to the built environment – not housing/ new built exclusively.”
APPGs have the potential to be used covertly, by organisations representing big business as a lobbying opportunity. But in my opinion, most APPG’s generally serve little purpose, Parliament is not required to act on their findings or research. There are literally hundreds of APPGs, more than 630 on 2nd May 2017. An APPG appears to me to provide little more than something for MPs to do before the restaurants open and the London rush hour subsiding. With many MPs using them as a means to get noticed and an opportunity to be interviewed by the media, promoting their personal political profile in the process. Not that it did previous chair Oliver Colville (58) any favours; he lost his Plymouth seat in the 2017 general election.
This APPG, Excellence in the Built Environment has in the last 6 years, according to the CIC, followed a format of:
Autumn [September-November] – call for evidence
Winter [December – February] – evidence gathering and evidence-sessions
Spring [March – May] – composing the report
Late spring [May]/ early summer [June/July] – launching the report.
So pretty much a whole year per Inquiry – so no great sense of urgency then?
Nice work if you can get it! So given the ‘call for evidence for this Inquiry was in December, (winter) we can’t expect the Report much before the end of August at the earliest. Taking into account the 2018 summer recess from 30 June to 2 September and the following party conference season (15 September to 3rd October 2018) there is a potential that this Inquiry report won’t see the light of day much before October 2018!
Meanwhile the Government announced on Sunday 18th February 2018 an 8-week consultation “Strengthening consumer redress in the housing market” which I will examine in depth, in my next article. The CIC have already confirmed the APPG will: “participate in the recently announced MHCLG consultation by feeding in our findings to them by 16 April, (using the same channels available to wider public)”
The great weak mortar scandal that housebuilders and warranty providers want to keep hidden.
There is now increasing incidence of new homebuyers reporting the issue of weak or soft mortar in the brickwork of their new homes. The solution if carried out, could in the worst case scenario, involve the demolition and rebuilding of the entire home, perhaps even all the homes on a development as it is also highly likely that most, if not all, of the houses were built with the same weak mortar. Needless to say both housebuilders and the warranty providers don’t want this and obstruct and frustrate new homebuyers who report weak mortar at every turn.
I first came across the weak-mix mortar issue when a foreman bricklayer I knew said he was taking down all the brickwork on a completed Bryant Homes site in Ashington, West Sussex in 2003. It would seem the mortar is question had ‘insufficient cement’ and just a quarter of the required strength.
Ten years later, I was contacted in October 2013 by an owner of a Bellway new home built in 2004 at De Haviland Way, Skelmesdale Lancs WN8 6DG. It had weak mortar and other serious structural issues. In April 2014, the then homeowner thanked me for my support, help and advice I gave regarding his NHBC warranty claim and said he could not discuss it further with me. The home, bought for £159,995 on 26 November 2004, was finally resold for £132,500 on 30 November 2016 – at a loss of £27,495 over 12 years in a rising market! I can only presume that the home was blighted, hence the knock-down price!
Just add water
Since the days, when hod carriers were entrusted to mix mortar in the required proportions, often simply half a bag of cement per mixer batch, most housebuilders have switched to using pre-mixed mortar, delivered dry by tankers to site silos. All the hod carrier has to do is turn on the water tap, switch on and out comes ready to use mortar.
This has advantages over the sand and cement being mixed on site. The primary one being that all mortar would be of consistent strength, colour and workability. “High quality constituent materials are used to produce the perfect dry mix under rigorously quality controlled conditions.” And, according to the manufacturers, the availability of many different colours, any of which would be consistent throughout the building or development. The new silos offered flexibility, with easily adjusted water content to compensate for wet bricks and blocks and the ability to “mix” only use what was needed avoiding waste on site. The new electrically-powered silos meant less noise, fewer deliveries and tidier sites. Above all, the mortar was Quality Assured being manufactured to BES 6001 and BS EN 998-2:2003, and “guaranteed unrivalled quality and technical expertise.”
So what’s not to like?
In recent years there have been a growing number of new homebuyers discovering the mortar in their brickwork is crumbling and “powdery”. This is not confined to a single housebuilder or a particular geographical area. The weak mortar, which can be easily brushed or lightly scraped from mortar joints is being washed away by the effects of weather and is evident in many newly-built homes across the country. The solution (the most commonly one offered by both housebuilders and the NHBC warranty) is to rake out mortar joints to a depth of 25mm and re-point using new, sometimes higher strength mortar. However, the mortar not replaced would still be of inadequate strength. More importantly, the wall ties connecting the inner and outer skins of a cavity wall will be structurally less effective. Unless the external mortar is different, it is conceivable that the structural load-bearing walls of the inner skin, hidden from view, would also have been built using the same weak mortar. During a debate in the House of Commons regarding quality in the built environment, the then APPG EBE chair Jo Churchill MP for Bury St Edmonds, used the example of:
“…the repointing of joints on walls where purposeful demolition and reconstruction should have happened”
No doubt in response to the growing incidence of weak-mix mortar.
Is the weak mortar weak caused by a site issue?
The first line of defence used by mortar manufacturers is to claim the mortar was subject to circumstances on site beyond their control, resulting in the mortar being weakened. This can be caused by the following:
1) Building masonry walls in low or freezing temperatures and/or not protecting walls from freezing overnight. “The agent lets you build at 0 degC if the NHBC is not in”
2) Mortar is damaged or weakened by the use or overuse of brick acid cleaners and/or jet washing.
3) Mortar is remixed on boards after the initial set and has started to harden.
4) Walls are built in dry hot weather and the dry bricks suck water from the mortar before it is fully hydrated.
5) Too little or too much water added during mixing.
This is often further substantiated by their own in-house factory production control compressive strength testing data. It should be pointed out that this mortar is mixed and cured in ideal, controlled conditions, which could never be realistically exactly replicated on a building site.
However, I have seen independent test results which have analysed the mortar mix proportions and these reports categorically prove that in this instance, the mortar has insufficient cement and does not meet the NHBC mortar mix technical and performance standards.
The NHBC warranty “protection” for new homebuyers
As previously mentioned, the first line of defence (claim mitigation) is to offer a 25mm repointing of joints in the affected areas. If the homeowner refuses, the NHBC have a “mortar expert”; 85-year old Barry Haseltine, who the NHBC dispatch to buyers’ homes to carry out “independent assessments”. I am given to understand he is kept very busy!
I possess one of Haseltine’s reports and it makes very interesting reading. For a start, the disappearance of the mortar is being credited to “erosion” not caused by insufficient cement. He says:
“the surface [of the mortar] is somewhat dusty, and when rubbed can allow sand to be removed.”
“For the last 20 years or so, cement has become a complicated subject compared with the relative simplicity that existed when we had Ordinary Portland Cement and a small number of specialist mixtures for example masonry cement”
“It is a regrettable fact that mortar has become a potential problem with regard to durability in recent years, probably linked to the use of cements that have considerable proportions of additions which reduce the active cement in the mixes.”
Haseltine’s report shows the results of 14 test samples, analysed by three different and unrelated laboratories, all reporting a cement : sand mix ratio of 1 : 7.5 at best, to 1 : 9.6 at worst, all being below the required mix ratio in the NHBC standards 6.1.14 Mortar for “general use” (not severe exposure) being 1 : 5.5 cement : sand by volume – designation (iii) under BS EN 1996-1-1.Despite these clear proven results – at least 26% less cement than NHBC standards require and with less cement equating to weaker, less durable mortar – Haseltine concludes:
“The mix proportions that are listed in the table of analyses should not be used to judge the compliance of the mortar with the masonry codes that cover the strength of masonry, or with the Building Regulations simple rules, since the mortar supplier has supplied a design mix not a prescribed one.”
“Unless one has evidence that the strength of 4N/mm2 (M4) that defines a designation (iii) mortar has not been achieved on control tests, there can be no objection to the mortar or the strength of the walls in which it has been used. I do not think that the reduced amount of cement in the mix, as illustrated by a comparison of the analyses with the prescribed cement sand mixes in standards, will have any deleterious effect on the structure of the house, even if such a comparison were to be accepted as being relevant”
A “prescribed mix” is one where the mortar is made in pre determined proportions the properties of which are assumed from the stated proportions (recipe concept). A “design mix” is a mortar whose composition and manufacturing method is chosen by the producer in order to achieve specified properties (Performance concept)
So in summary, the NHBC’s go-to mortar “expert” doesn’t “think” that a significant (26.6%) reduction in cement quantity in a mortar mix would structurally weaken a wall or reduce its durability to withstand the extremes of weather!
Can Barry Haseltine from Jenkins and Potter be considered independent?
The Jenkins and Potter website states that “We have formed a number of close associations with housing developers after many years” – in my opinion, it is a moot point that any of their consultants could be considered truly independent of the housebuilding industry. Barry Haseltine was Chairman of the CEN Eurocode Committee for Masonry and chairman of the British Standards Institution Code of Practice Committee for the design of masonry and its sub-committee responsible for the structural masonry codes. His own reputation and credibility could be called into question if it can be shown that he is wrong. It could therefore be argued it is in his own best interests to protect the housebuilders and in doing so, ring-fence his own reputation.
It is ludicrous that mortar tested by the manufacturer’s in a controlled environment to above a 4N/mm2 compressive strength can be sold as an M4 Design Mix mortar and deemed equivalent to a mortar designation (iii) Prescribed Mix with a cement : sand ratio 0f 1 : 5.5 when the laboratory proved cement content is circa 26% less than the mix proportions required in the NHBC warranty standards require.
What is the cause?
This has yet to be fully established, there are several theories which I will explore in detail in my follow up article. However, whilst mortar suppliers are free to put whatever they like, in whatever proportions, as long as they can achieve a compressive strength of 4N/mm2 in their own tests and the warranty providers appear indifferent to requiring the specific mortar mix proportions in their standards and banning cement replacement additives such as GGBS, the number of homes with weak mortar can only continue to rise. Until there is an industry recognised compression test for mortar in-situ, new homebuyers will be forced to accept sporadic repointing as a “solution” to defective weak mix mortar, with potentially catastrophic consequences, not only for many thousands of individual homeowners, but the overall housing supply. Further reading: What is happening to masonry mortar – (Oct 2017) by Graham True of GFT Use of Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag (GGBS) in mortar (Jan 2008) Best practice- potential site problems 2014 – Mortar Industry Association
The government has finally recognised the need for an independent New Homes Ombudsman and an APPG Inquiry is currently calling for evidence on how it would operate.
It is not impossible to build a defect-free new home. All that is required is the will to do so – building with care and with a thorough inspection regime that requires all sub-standard work to be taken down and re done. Yet 98% of new homebuyers report defects to their housebuilder within a few weeks.
Defects in UK new homes are injuring children!
For far too long the industry has used the “built in the open in all weathers” excuse and lowered buyers’ expectations. Bricklayers do not and cannot work in the rain! Render is not applied in the rain, yet there are many defects associated with both. Superstructure accounted for 38% of all NHBC warranty claims in the year to 31 March 2017, costing £35million (41% of total claims) to rectify. Adverse weather does not contribute to walls being built out of plumb, render cracking or missing insulation! All other trades (apart from groundworkers) work inside, often in the same conditions found in most factories.
The APPG Inquiry Report, published on 13th July 2016, concluded:
“Housebuilder’s own quality control systems are not fit for purpose”
“there needs to be an industry aspiration to achieve a zero-defects culture”
“good practice should be seen as building a new home that is defect-free”
It clearly stated the number 1 “key recommendation” – the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) setting up a New Homes Ombudsman:
“The role would include mediating disputes between consumers and their builders or warranty providers to offer a quick resolution procedure paid for by a housebuilders’ levy.
We see this is as the key recommendation to provide more effective consumer redress, if things go wrong, and a good way of applying pressure on housebuilders and warranty providers to deliver a better quality service.
Our view is that the new service should be funded by a levy on the sector, but it would need to be completely independent and replace the dispute resolution service offered as part of the Consumer Code for Home Builders. Our recommendation picks up on one made by the Office of Fair Trading, in its 2008 market study into the house building industry, which suggested that, if the industry failed to make satisfactory progress, it would recommend further intervention in the form of a statutory redress mechanism for new homebuyers funded by a levy on the industry.”
So it is somewhat disappointing that, 18 months after the report was making the recommendation that an independent, government-appointed New Homes Ombudsman be set up to give buyers an independent form of redress, there has been so little progress. It is to be hoped that following this latest Inquiry, an independent New Homes Ombudsman will be set up by government without recourse to further delay, consultation, consideration, or review.
“Too many new homebuyers are suffering, many are physically drained as a result of engagement with errant housebuilders when trying to get their new homes brought up to warranty standards and statutory regulations. For some buyers the mental anguish has become almost unbearable.” – Rob Wilson ex MP Reading East
The housebuilders’ lobby group the Home Builders Federation (HBF), will no doubt tell this Inquiry that (according to the industry’s own customer satisfaction survey) “84% of new homebuyers are satisfied with their new home.” But as Communities Secretary, Rt Hon Sajid Javid alluded to in his speech at the NHBC on 29 November 2017:
“too many new-build homes are simply not good enough.” You [HBF] can point to customer satisfaction levels of between 80 and 90%, something I’m often told about but [of new homebuyers] finding faults that take months and sometimes even years to remedy. It’s not just disappointing – it’s devastating. But just think about those 217,000 new homes built last year. Even if 80% of them have no issues, that still leaves well over 40,000 families living in accommodation that they don’t think is good enough.”
An ever growing number of new homebuyers have to move out of their new homes, often for several months, whilst their house is taken apart to rectify serious, often structural defects. More recently, there is a growing incidence of weak-mix mortar.
It is to be noted that the APPG Inquiry deadline for written submissions has recently been extended – the day after the BBC reported on the dire quality and defective new homes – from 22 December 2017 to 12 January 2018. It is hoped this is not to give the industry extra time to get its “ducks in a row.”
The current “procedures” limited as they are, serve to protect housebuilders and the warranty providers rather than help consumers. The only “alternative”, as has been written in many letters from various housing ministers and staff at the DCLG over the years, is for buyers to take action through the courts for monetary compensation.
As most buyers realise, even those with legal expenses insurance, this is a lengthy and costly process with no guarantee of a successful and fair outcome. Indeed, housebuilders have deep pockets and vigorously defend every attempt by the very few new homebuyers who courageously take this course of action. Housebuilders do this in the certain knowledge that it will cost them far less to defend the small number of claims that could potentially end up in court, than routinely pay justifiable compensation to homebuyers. Even if an agreement is reached ahead of a court hearing, this is normally subject to a non-disclosure agreement clause, (“gagging order”) to avoid any precedent being established and to reduce likelihood of action being taken by others, often with identical issues.
It is no longer a case of getting (all be it eventually) a few minor defects and snags rectified by the housebuilder being a satisfactory outcome. Now there is a clear case for justifiable compensation paid by housebuilders and/or warranty providers, to all buyers of sub-standard defect-ridden new homes.
A recent announcement by Communities Secretary Sajid Javid on 29 November 2017, mentioned “bold options” that the Government “will look at to improve consumer redress across the housing sector” – Setting up an independent New Homes Ombudsman should be its priority.
Worryingly, it would appear that it is the Government’s intention of rolling all existing ombudsman (Housing Ombudsman, the Property Ombudsman and Ombudsman Services’ Property, and the Property Redress scheme) into one, all-encompassing, ‘one-size-fits-all’ “Housing Ombudsman” rather than a simplified New Homes Ombudsman, purely for consumers that buy new homes. I firmly believe a separate, stand-alone, fit-for-purpose, independent New Homes Ombudsman is the only way that this industry will be forced to look inwards at what it does and make both the quality of new homes and customers, their number one priority.
As it stands, housebuilders are showing no intention of taking proactive measures to improve the quality of the new homes they build. Consumers need a fully independent means of redress. It is now essential to appoint a New Homes Ombudsman for the house building industry. All existing legislation to protect consumers, including The Consumer Rights Act 2015, does not apply to property.
“I applaud the Department for Communities and Local Government for getting the Home Builders Federation to look into the voluntary ombudsman scheme, but perhaps the time for any such voluntary scheme has passed.” Perhaps?
“…the repointing of joints on walls where purposeful demolition and reconstruction should have happened” – No doubt in response to the growing incidence of weak-mix mortar.
“We must have not a nice, cosy, industry-led ombudsman, but an ombudsman process that has real teeth and the capacity to make a material difference” said Tony Lloyd MP for Rochdale
A New Homes Ombudsman, by its very existence would force housebuilders to look at what they do (and don’t do) forcing them to strive to do better, in the certain knowledge that a buyer can complain to an independent ombudsman who would potentially, be able to award unlimited, justifiable compensation. Such awards would become a matter of public record. No longer would housebuilders be able to delay and defeat buyers’ repeated attempts to have their defective new homes fixed.
New Homes Ombudsman: FREE – FAIR – FOR EVERYTHING
Free – At no cost to new homebuyers making a complaint following the housebuilder or warranty provider issuing a final deadlock letter.
Fair – A New Homes Ombudsman would (and must) be entirely independent of the housebuilding industry – something that clearly the warranty providers and the Consumer Code for Home Builders are most definitely not! Fully transparent, appointed and audited by Government.
For everything – Everything and anything that can and does arise when buying and living in a new home. Dealing with buyers’ complaints including misleading and incomplete marketing information and underhand selling practices, unfair contracts, poor build quality, defects, non-compliance with Building Regulations and/or warranty standards, inadequate or indifferent after sales service, conflicts of interest, tenure and boundary issues, contractual disputes – with the New Homes Ombudsman being able to order housebuilders and/or new home warranty providers to pay buyers justifiable and meaningful compensation awards.
The New Homes Ombudsman must be fully-independent and government-appointed, NOT one of many “Ombudsman” in the Ombudsman-services.org who act as little more than an outsourced dispute resolution service to various sectors. Cost Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) is not going to work either!
But the New Homes Ombudsman should not be part of a wider, ‘one-size-fits-all’ one-stop, general purpose “Housing Ombudsman” as the current rhetoric from Government would indicate. I was horrified that merging the various existing residential Ombudsman into one “Housing Ombudsman” is being given serious consideration even though it would also include a mechanism of independent redress for new homebuyers for the first time. Whilst this is better than the complete absence of any independent means of redress that new homebuyers currently have, it would not be in the best interests of new homebuyers if the badly needed New Homes Ombudsman was set up as part of a wider “Housing Ombudsman” service.
It would take a considerable amount of time and presumably new legislation to combine the existing ombudsmen into one office. Furthermore, the new-build industry is sufficiently large and errant to fully justify a dedicated New Homes Ombudsman of its own – which would specialise in the many unique issues and technicalities of the new-build sector. Camouflaging a New Homes Ombudsman under the umbrella of a general “Housing Ombudsman” would also make the New Homes Ombudsman less conspicuous to the very people who would need and benefit from it.
Housebuilders and warranty providers operational basis is to ‘bat away’ buyers’ complaints and warranty claims rather than work in the consumer’s best interests. Despite many years of opportunity, this isn’t going to change. It is now time, as I would hope this Inquiry will conclude, that UK new homebuyers were given something from this government. A small concession that if (or rather when) they are unfortunate enough to discover major, preventable defects in their new home, or housebuilders fail to rectify defects in a timely manner, they can apply to an independent, government-appointed New Homes Ombudsman who could award justifiable and meaningful levels of compensation.
As Communities Secretary Sajid Javid MP announced on 29 November 2017 recognising the need for an Ombudsman to give new homebuyers a form of redress, I would hope, following the recommendations and evidence I have submitted to this Inquiry, he will announce that a stand-alone independent New Homes Ombudsman will be now be set up by the end of 2018.
In the past, government ministers and the DCLG have been hoodwinked into believing that the industry’s own voluntary Code, the new home warranty and the building regulations offer sufficient protection for new homebuyers. Government also believed that consumers are “more likely to be supported by independent professional advice from lawyers and others capable of giving advice top their clients and because the terms of the contract are more likely to be negotiated.” and “they can take action through the courts for monetary compensation.”
However, despite the obvious need and benefits a New Homes Ombudsmanwould give consumers, many within the industry, will maintain that a fully independent New Homes Ombudsman is not necessary. Their lobbyists, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) claim “the overall quality of new homes has never been higher than it is today” stating that “the overwhelming majority of people are happy with their new homes. In the small number of cases where buyers encounter problems the industry is fully committed to completing them as soon as practically possible.”
This is quite simply, not the case.
Comments Off on New Homes Ombudsman – APPG Inquiry 2018
Posted on29/04/2017byNew Home Expert|Comments Off on Taylor Wimpey Announces £130m Leasehold Sticking Plaster Solution To Housebuilders’ PPI
Caught in a trap! Taylor Wimpey “sorry” for ripping off leaseholders!
Some mistakes are hard to fix. It is better to be careful – not sorry!
Taylor Wimpey used a trading statement last week to announce their ‘conclusions’ following a review into the company’s historic lease structures. This focused solely on a specific lease structure used from 2007 to late 2011, which provides that the ground rent doubles every 10 years until the 50th year. In doing so, the company created a new asset class that is now very attractive to specialist investors, because it equates to an annual interest rate of 7%. Taylor Wimpey claimed these leases “are considered to be entirely legal.” It remains to be seen whether the charges would be deemed by a court to be ‘fair and reasonable’ Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Taylor Wimpey now admit that: “the introduction of these doubling clauses was not consistent with our high standards of customer service and we are sorry for the unintended financial consequence and concern that they are causing.” Surprisingly, Taylor Wimpey says the total cash outflow of around £130million “will be spread over a number of years.” In addition, this only applies to the “qualifying customers subject to eligibility checks” – only those owners who bought from Taylor Wimpey are to be “helped.”
Ground Rent Review
Taylor Wimpey has written to buyers who have complained about their leases with the onerous ground rent doubling clause. In the letter Taylor Wimpey outline its “Ground Rent Review Assistance Scheme” funded by the company, which offers to negotiate on the customers’ behalf with freehold owners for a ‘Deed of Variation’ to “convert existing doubling leases to an alternative lease structure incorporating materially less expensive ground rent review terms.” with Taylor Wimpey covering the financial cost of doing so”.
Welcome to ‘rabbit hutch’ Britain as Government gives the green ight to even smaller micro homes
“Ridiculous” – “immoral” – “dog kennels” – “shoe boxes” – “rabbit hutches” These are just some of the words local residents have used to describe Britain’s micro homes – Government-endorsed “favelas in the sky.”
It would appear the Government is intent on cramming an ever increasing number of ‘hard working British people’ into ever smaller areas and living spaces. Evidence of this provided by the Housing White Paper, with its proposal to review the guidance on minimum sizes for new homes, despite the “nationally described space standard” only being in force since October 2015.
“The Government proposes to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to make it clear that plans and individual development proposals should:
make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is a shortage of land for meeting identified housing requirements;
address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations”
We also want to make sure the standards do not rule out new approaches to meeting demand, building on the high quality compact living model of developers such as Pocket Homes ”
“The evidence points to an industry…..which will at times ride rough-shod over dissatisfied buyers”
“the Code [Consumer Code for Home Builders] does not appear to give homebuyers the safeguards we think they should expect”
“it does not appear to us objectively to offer consumers a wholly satisfactory form of redress”
“The Consumer Code for Homebuilders is limited in its scope”
Well it’s about to get a whole lot worse! In September 2015, the CCHB announced a triennial review of Code, at that time changes were expected to come into effect in 2016 – “to ensure it continues to evolve with the industry and changing consumer needs and as a result of adjudication cases.” It claims “The industry has now made great strides in producing an updated Consumer Code which is fit for purpose in today’s world” Talk about hype!Changing consumer needs? Fit for purpose? Last week the CCHB published the 4th incarnation of their consumer code, which I believe now contains specific revisions which severely diminish the likelihood of a successful claim by new homebuyers seeking redress and justice from errant housebuilders. The changes, place additional restrictions that can best be described as obstructive, the sole purpose of which is to protect the industry from the very few homebuyers that go through the rigmarole of Code’s dispute adjudication process.
Posted on30/03/2017byNew Home Expert|Comments Off on Latest HBF Customer Satisfaction Survey shows new home quality is still falling
HBF Customer Satisfaction Survey Results 2017
HBF survey results 2017. After a long and unexplained delay, the Home Builders Federation (HBF), with an income of over £3million (2015), mostly funded by its member housebuilders, finally published its annual New Homes Customer Satisfaction Survey Results and house builder star ratings for 2017 late yesterday. Unlike the rest of us, housebuilders have known their scores throughout the year in real time, thanks to the NHBC online portal providing monthly updates on just how their customers are rating them. So why the delay HBF? What possible reason could there have been for requiring a total of 12 weeks, two more than in 2016, since the last customer responses for the HBF survey year to 30 September 2016, were received on the 14 January 2017 cut off? By strange coincidence, it was the same day that Article 50 was triggered, making it unlikely the poor survey results would get any media attention with all the Article 50 coverage.
Did the HBF decide it was a good day to bury their bad news?
Perhaps calculations were being done to effect an overall more favourable impression of customer satisfaction with new homes. Perhaps there were discussions about including late, more favourable surveys and ruling out unfavourable responses on the grounds of invalidity? Perhaps the PR spin was more difficult to write this year? Who knows? Certainly not me. Even though the HBF Chief Executive Stewart Baseley stated on national radio just last month that he is “a great believer in transparency”, the HBF survey remains a mystery to all but those involved in its carefully scripted questions and the statistical “methodology set out by the NHBC themselves” used in the analysis and validation of the survey by the University of Reading’s Statistical Service Centre.
Posted on24/03/2017byNew Home Expert|Comments Off on Reward for failure as ex Bovis CEO David Ritchie stands to receive nearly £2m pay off
Regardless of what fictional character Gordon Gecko once said, “Greed for want of a better word is” most definitely not good! As details emerged earlier this week of David Ritchie’s pay-off. The former chief executive of Bovis Homes “resigned” on 9th January 2017 after a profit warning and ahead of the scandal of buyers being paid up to £3,000 to legally compete on homes that were not finished, and the announcement by Bovis that they had set aside £7 million in February to redress complaints.
A Section 430(2b) statement by Bovis homes, confirmed Ritchie is to be handed a total of £635,430 in salary and bonus and a further £909,250 in shares under the long-term-incentive-plan. He also stands to receive a further tranche of 40,556 shares currently worth £357,805 up to 24 February 2018. A total possible payout of £1,902,485!
He will be paid a lump sum of £242,180 and will receive a total of £338,250 from July until December salary in lieu of notice. His contractual notice period runs until 8 January 2018.
The parliamentary petitions system has come under criticism lately when it was revealed that fewer than ten of the thousands of petition appeals launched by the public had led to a change of policy.As at 3 March 2017, more than 28,400 applications were submitted to the Commons petitions committee in the past 19 months.
The Petitions Committee review all petitions published. The website says they “select petitions of interest to find out more about the issues raised” and “have the power to press for action from government or Parliament.”
Stewart Baseley, Executive Chairman of HBF interview on BBC Radio 4 Today – Saturday 11 February
True to form the Home Builder’s Federation [HBF] the industry’s PR and lobby group, conducts a perfect whitewash on the facts as their executive chairman Stewart Baseley trots out a well-used, well-rehearsed HBF rhetoric. The two main points the industry is keen to focus on at the moment: “promoting awareness of increases in output and rebut negative claims on build quality” are well covered. Mission accomplished! Move along there is nothing to see. Money well-spent? The HBF was funded mostly by its house builder members to the tune of £3,037,449 in the year to 31 December 2015.
Questions to Stewart Baseley, Executive Chairman of HBF Do you accept there is a problem? “No I don’t accept there is a problem although clearly there are in some cases that you have highlighted some of those on your report and I totally accept that anybody that’s in a situation where they have got a problem, it’s very serious for them.”
“No problem – some cases” Fact: As Stewart Baseley knows, the NHBC paid out £90million in warranty claims for remedial works to fix serious defects in 11,000 new homes (an average of £8,181 each) in the 12 months to 31 March 2016. That equates nearly 9% of the 124,720 new homes built in the same period. In the previous year, the NHBC spent £86million on remedial works including £23million on foundations and £32million on superstructures to 11,000 new homes.